Advertisement

Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences

, Volume 76, Issue 3, pp 505–521 | Cite as

The relationship between substrate topography and stem cell differentiation in the musculoskeletal system

  • Jiayun Huang
  • Yangwu Chen
  • Chenqi Tang
  • Yang Fei
  • Haoyu Wu
  • Dengfeng Ruan
  • Maswikiti Ewetse Paul
  • Xiao Chen
  • Zi Yin
  • Boon Chin Heng
  • Weishan Chen
  • Weiliang ShenEmail author
Review
First Online:
  • 190 Downloads

Abstract

It is well known that biomaterial topography can exert a profound influence on various cellular functions such as migration, polarization, and adhesion. With the development and refinement of manufacturing technology, much research has recently been focused on substrate topography-induced cell differentiation, particularly in the field of tissue engineering. Even without biological and chemical stimuli, the differentiation of stem cells can also be initiated by various biomaterials with different topographic features. However, the underlying mechanisms of this biological phenomenon remain elusive. During the past few decades, many researchers have demonstrated that cells can sense the topography of materials through the assembly and polymerization of membrane proteins. Following the activation of RHO, TGF-b or FAK signaling pathways, cells can be induced into various differentiation states. But these signaling pathways often coincide with canonical mechanical transduction pathways, and no firm conclusion has been reached among researchers in this field on topography-specific signaling pathways. On the other hand, some substrate topographies are reported to have the ability to inhibit differentiation and maintain the ‘stemness’ of stem cells. In this review, we will summarize the role of topography in musculoskeletal system regeneration and explore possible topography-related signaling pathways involved in cell differentiation.

Keywords

Stem cell differentiation Musculoskeletal system Topography Tissue engineering 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work of our research group was supported by the National key R&D program of China (2017YFA0104901, 2017YFA0104900), National key research and development program of China (2016YFC1100204), NSFC Grants (81572115, 81874019, 81572157, 81330041, 81125014, 31271041, 81201396, 81271970, J1103603, 81522029, 31570987, 81401781), Regenerative Medicine in Innovative Medical Subjects of Zhejiang Province and Zhejiang Provincial Program for the Cultivation of High-Level Innovative Health Talents, Zhejiang Province Grants (Z2100086, LY12H06006, LR14H060001, LY14H060003), the Key scientific and technological innovation team of Zhejiang Province (2013TD11), Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan of the Department of Health of Zhejiang Province (2013RCA010, 2014KYB052), Medical Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Province (201341741), and Zhejiang Provisional Grant (2012C33015). International Science and Technology Cooperation Program of China (2015DFG32130). Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. None of the authors had professional or financial affiliations that biased this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors hereby declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Moraes C, Sun Y, Simmons CA (2011) (Micro)managing the mechanical microenvironment. Integr Biol (Camb) 3(10):959–971Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee J, Abdeen AA, Zhang D, Kilian KA (2013) Directing stem cell fate on hydrogel substrates by controlling cell geometry, matrix mechanics and adhesion ligand composition. Biomaterials 34(33):8140–8148Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dalby MJ, Gadegaard N, Tare R et al (2007) The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat Mater 6(12):997–1003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liao S, Nguyen LT, Ngiam M et al (2014) Biomimetic nanocomposites to control osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Adv Healthc Mater 3(5):737–751Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bozec L, van der Heijden G, Horton M (2007) Collagen fibrils: nanoscale ropes. Biophys J 92(1):70–75Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wolf K, Müller R, Borgmann S, Bröcker EB, Friedl P (2003) Amoeboid shape change and contact guidance: T-lymphocyte crawling through fibrillar collagen is independent of matrix remodeling by MMPs and other proteases. Blood 102(9):3262–3269Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sutherland J, Denyer M, Britland S (2005) Contact guidance in human dermal fibroblasts is modulated by population pressure. J Anat 206(6):581–587Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hao J, Zhang Y, Jing D et al (2015) Mechanobiology of mesenchymal stem cells: perspective into mechanical induction of MSC fate. Acta Biomater 20:1–9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guilak F, Cohen DM, Estes BT, Gimble JM, Liedtke W, Chen CS (2009) Control of stem cell fate by physical interactions with the extracellular matrix. Cell Stem Cell 5(1):17–26Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Béduer A, Vieu C, Arnauduc F, Sol JC, Loubinoux I (2012) Engineering of adult human neural stem cells differentiation through surface micropatterning. Biomaterials 33:504Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buxboim A, Discher DE (2010) Stem cells feel the difference. Nat Methods 7(9):695–697Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zemel A, Rehfeldt F, Brown AE, Discher DE, Safran SA (2010) Optimal matrix rigidity for stress fiber polarization in stem cells. Nat Phys 6(6):468–473Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Discher DE, Mooney DJ, Zandstra PW (2009) Growth factors, matrices, and forces combine and control stem cells. Science 324(5935):1673–1677Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klein MO, Bijelic A, Ziebart T et al (2013) Submicron scale-structured hydrophilic titanium surfaces promote early osteogenic gene response for cell adhesion and cell differentiation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15(2):166–175Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Inzunza D, Covarrubias C, Von Marttens A et al (2014) Synthesis of nanostructured porous silica coatings on titanium and their cell adhesive and osteogenic differentiation properties. J Biomed Mater Res A 102(1):37–48Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dalby MJ, McCloy D, Robertson M, Wilkinson CD, Oreffo RO (2006) Osteoprogenitor response to defined topographies with nanoscale depths. Biomaterials 27:1306–1315Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vega SL, Arvind V, Mishra P, Kohn J, Sanjeeva MN, Moghe PV (2018) Substrate micropatterns produced by polymer demixing regulate focal adhesions, actin anisotropy, and lineage differentiation of stem cells. Acta Biomater 76:21–28Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abagnale G, Steger M, Nguyen VH et al (2015) Surface topography enhances differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells towards osteogenic and adipogenic lineages. Biomaterials 61:316–326Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ahn EH, Kim Y, Kshitiz et al (2014) Spatial control of adult stem cell fate using nanotopographic cues. Biomaterials 35(8):2401–2410Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zouani OF, Chanseau C, Brouillaud B et al (2012) Altered nanofeature size dictates stem cell differentiation. J Cell Sci 125(Pt 5):1217–1224Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ding H, Zhong J, Xu F et al (2017) Establishment of 3D culture and induction of osteogenic differentiation of pre-osteoblasts using wet-collected aligned scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 71:222–230Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen F, Hayami JW, Amsden BG (2014) Electrospun poly(l-lactide-co-acryloyl carbonate) fiber scaffolds with a mechanically stable crimp structure for ligament tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules 15:1593Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fee T, Surianarayanan S, Downs C, Zhou Y, Berry J (2016) Nanofiber alignment regulates NIH3T3 cell orientation and cytoskeletal gene expression on electrospun PCL + gelatin nanofibers. PLoS One 11:e0154806Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yin Z, Chen X, Song HX, Hu JJ, Tang QM, Zhu T, Shen WL (2015) Electrospun scaffolds for multiple tissues regeneration in vivo through topography dependent induction of lineage specific differentiation. Biomaterials 44:173Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zheng Z, Ran J, Chen W et al (2017) Alignment of collagen fiber in knitted silk scaffold for functional massive rotator cuff repair. Acta Biomater 51:317–329Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Younesi M, Islam A, Kishore V (2014) Tenogenic induction of human MSCs by anisotropically aligned collagen biotextiles. Adv Funct Mater 24:5762Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pamuła E, De Cupere V, Dufrêne YF, Rouxhet PG (2004) Nanoscale organization of adsorbed collagen: influence of substrate hydrophobicity and adsorption time. J Colloid Interface Sci 271(1):80–91Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Savaiano JK, Webster TJ (2004) Altered responses of chondrocytes to nanophase PLGA/nanophase titania composites. Biomaterials 25(7–8):1205–1213Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Da Silva MA, Crawford A, Mundy JM et al (2010) Chitosan/polyester-based scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering: assessment of extracellular matrix formation. Acta Biomater 6(3):1149–1157Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ferlin KM, Prendergast ME, Miller ML, Kaplan DS, Fisher JP (2016) Influence of 3D printed porous architecture on mesenchymal stem cell enrichment and differentiation. Acta Biomater 32:161–169Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    da Alves SM, Martins A, Costa-Pinto AR et al (2017) Electrospun nanofibrous meshes cultured with Wharton’s Jelly stem cell: an alternative for cartilage regeneration, without the need of growth factors. Biotechnol J 12:1700073Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chen H, Huang X, Zhang M et al (2017) Tailoring surface nanoroughness of electrospun scaffolds for skeletal tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 59:82–93Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shafiee A, Seyedjafari E, Sadat TE, Dinarvand P, Soleimani M, Ai J (2014) Enhanced chondrogenesis of human nasal septum derived progenitors on nanofibrous scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 40:445–454Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Park J, Bauer S, Pittrof A, Killian MS, Schmuki P, der Mark KV (2012) Synergistic control of mesenchymal stem cell differentiation by nanoscale surface geometry and immobilized growth factors on TiO2 nanotubes. Small 8(1):98–107Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huang NF, Patel S, Thakar RG et al (2006) Myotube assembly on nanofibrous and micropatterned polymers. Nano Lett 6(3):537–542Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Murray LM, Nock V, Evans JJ, Alkaisi MM (2016) The use of substrate materials and topography to modify growth patterns and rates of differentiation of muscle cells. J Biomed Mater Res A 104(7):1638–1645Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhou K, Feng B, Wang W, Jiang Y, Zhang W, Zhou G, Jiang T, Cao Y, Liu W (2018) Nanoscaled and microscaled parallel topography promotes tenogenic differentiation of ASC and neotendon formation in vitro. Int J Nanomed 13:3867–3881Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gao J, Dennis JE, Muzic RF, Lundberg M, Caplan AI (2001) The dynamic in vivo distribution of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells after infusion. Cells Tissues Organs 169(1):12–20Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Joergensen NL, Foldager CB, Le DQ, Lind M, Lysdahl H (2016) Precipitant induced porosity augmentation of polystyrene preserves the chondrogenicity of human chondrocytes. J Biomed Mater Res A 104:3073–3081Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dalby MJ, Riehle MO, Johnstone H, Affrossman S, Curtis AS (2004) Investigating the limits of filopodial sensing: a brief report using SEM to image the interaction between 10 nm high nano-topography and fibroblast filopodia. Cell Biol Int 28:229–236Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gui N, Xu W, Abraham AN, Myers DE, Mayes EL, Xia K, Shukla R, Qian M (2018) A comparative study of the effect of submicron porous and smooth ultrafine-grained Ti-20Mo surfaces on osteoblast responses. J Biomed Mater Res A 106:2020–2033Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bettinger CJ, Langer R, Borenstein JT (2009) Engineering substrate topography at the micro- and nanoscale to control cell function. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 48(30):5406–5415Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chen P, Aso T, Sasaki R, Ashida M, Tsutsumi Y, Doi H, Hanawa T (2018) Adhesion and differentiation behaviors of mesenchymal stem cells on titanium with micrometer and nanometer-scale grid patterns produced by femtosecond laser irradiation. J Biomed Mater Res A 106:2735–2743Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chen P, Aso T, Sasaki R, Tsutsumi Y, Ashida M, Doi H, Hanawa T (2017) Micron/submicron hybrid topography of titanium surfaces influences adhesion and differentiation behaviors of the mesenchymal stem cells. J Biomed Nanotechnol 13:324–336Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhao C, Wang X, Gao L, Jing L, Zhou Q, Chang J (2018) The role of the micro-pattern and nano-topography of hydroxyapatite bioceramics on stimulating osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Acta Biomater 73:509–521Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jiang N, Guo Z, Sun D, Li Y, Yang Y, Chen C, Zhang L, Zhu S (2018) Promoting osseointegration of Ti implants through micro/nanoscaled hierarchical Ti phosphate/Ti oxide hybrid coating. ACS Nano 12:7883Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yu Y, Shen X, Liu J, Hu Y, Ran Q, Mu C, Cai K (2018) Regulation of osteogenesis by micro/nano hierarchical titanium surfaces through a Rock-Wnt5a feedback loop. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 170:1–10Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dent EW, Gertler FB (2003) Cytoskeletal dynamics and transport in growth cone motility and axon guidance. Neuron 40(2):209–227Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gerecht S, Bettinger CJ, Zhang Z, Borenstein JT, Vunjak-Novakovic G, Langer R (2007) The effect of actin disrupting agents on contact guidance of human embryonic stem cells. Biomaterials 28(28):4068–4077Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lenhert S, Meier MB, Meyer U, Chi L, Wiesmann HP (2005) Osteoblast alignment, elongation and migration on grooved polystyrene surfaces patterned by Langmuir–Blodgett lithography. Biomaterials 26(5):563–570Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nobes CD, Hall A (1995) Rho, rac, and cdc42 GTPases regulate the assembly of multimolecular focal complexes associated with actin stress fibers, lamellipodia, and filopodia. Cell 81(1):53–62Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Albuschies J, Vogel V (2013) The role of filopodia in the recognition of nanotopographies. Sci Rep 3:1658Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Brizzi MF, Tarone G, Defilippi P (2012) Extracellular matrix, integrins, and growth factors as tailors of the stem cell niche. Curr Opin Cell Biol 24(5):645–651Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Di CS, Gautrot JE (2016) Cell sensing of physical properties at the nanoscale: mechanisms and control of cell adhesion and phenotype. Acta Biomater 30:26–48Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Teo BK, Wong ST, Lim CK et al (2013) Nanotopography modulates mechanotransduction of stem cells and induces differentiation through focal adhesion kinase. ACS Nano 7(6):4785–4798Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Biggs MJ, Richards RG, Gadegaard N, Wilkinson CD, Dalby MJ (2007) The effects of nanoscale pits on primary human osteoblast adhesion formation and cellular spreading. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18(2):399–404Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Loye AM, Kinser ER, Bensouda S, Shayan M, Davis R, Wang R, Chen Z, Schwarz UD, Schroers J, Kyriakides TR (2018) Regulation of mesenchymal stem cell differentiation by nanopatterning of bulk metallic glass. Sci Rep 8:8758Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sequeira SJ, Soscia DA, Oztan B et al (2012) The regulation of focal adhesion complex formation and salivary gland epithelial cell organization by nanofibrous PLGA scaffolds. Biomaterials 33(11):3175–3186Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fee T, Surianarayanan S, Downs C, Zhou Y, Berry J (2016) Nanofiber alignment regulates NIH3T3 cell orientation and cytoskeletal gene expression on electrospun PCL + gelatin nanofibers. PLoS One 11(5):e0154806Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ivaska J, Heino J (2011) Cooperation between integrins and growth factor receptors in signaling and endocytosis. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 27:291–320Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Uberti B, Dentelli P, Rosso A, Defilippi P, Brizzi MF (2010) Inhibition of β1 integrin and IL-3Rβ common subunit interaction hinders tumour angiogenesis. Oncogene 29(50):6581–6590Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Biggs MJ, Richards RG, Gadegaard N, Wilkinson CD, Oreffo RO, Dalby MJ (2009) The use of nanoscale topography to modulate the dynamics of adhesion formation in primary osteoblasts and ERK/MAPK signalling in STRO-1 + enriched skeletal stem cells. Biomaterials 30(28):5094–5103Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tilghman RW, Parsons JT (2008) Focal adhesion kinase as a regulator of cell tension in the progression of cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 18(1):45–52Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Cassidy JW, Roberts JN, Smith CA et al (2014) Osteogenic lineage restriction by osteoprogenitors cultured on nanometric grooved surfaces: the role of focal adhesion maturation. Acta Biomater 10(2):651–660Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dreier B, Raghunathan VK, Russell P, Murphy CJ (2012) Focal adhesion kinase knockdown modulates the response of human corneal epithelial cells to topographic cues. Acta Biomater 8(12):4285–4294Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Seo CH, Furukawa K, Montagne K, Jeong H, Ushida T (2011) The effect of substrate microtopography on focal adhesion maturation and actin organization via the RhoA/ROCK pathway. Biomaterials 32(36):9568–9575Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lim JY, Dreiss AD, Zhou Z et al (2007) The regulation of integrin-mediated osteoblast focal adhesion and focal adhesion kinase expression by nanoscale topography. Biomaterials 28(10):1787–1797Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Dalby MJ, Riehle MO, Yarwood SJ, Wilkinson CD, Curtis AS (2003) Nucleus alignment and cell signaling in fibroblasts: response to a micro-grooved topography. Exp Cell Res 284(2):274–282Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Katoh K, Kano Y, Noda Y (2011) Rho-associated kinase-dependent contraction of stress fibres and the organization of focal adhesions. J R Soc Interface 8:305Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hsu SH, Chen CY, Lu PS, Lai CS, Chen CJ (2005) Oriented Schwann cell growth on microgrooved surfaces. Biotechnol Bioeng 92(5):579–588Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wang W, Li J, Wang K et al (2016) Induction of predominant tenogenic phenotype in human dermal fibroblasts via synergistic effect of TGF-β and elongated cell shape. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 310(5):C357–C372Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pholpabu P, Kustra S, Wu H, Balasubramanian A, Bettinger CJ (2015) Lithography-free fabrication of reconfigurable substrate topography for contact guidance. Biomaterials 39:164–172Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kim SJ, Lee JK, Kim JW et al (2008) Surface modification of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) induced proliferation and neural-like cells differentiation of umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells. J Mater Sci Mater Med 19(8):2953–2962Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Chua JS, Chng CP, Moe AA et al (2014) Extending neurites sense the depth of the underlying topography during neuronal differentiation and contact guidance. Biomaterials 35(27):7750–7761Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Teixeira AI, McKie GA, Foley JD, Bertics PJ, Nealey PF, Murphy CJ (2006) The effect of environmental factors on the response of human corneal epithelial cells to nanoscale substrate topography. Biomaterials 27(21):3945–3954Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Linask KK (2003) Regulation of heart morphology: current molecular and cellular perspectives on the coordinated emergence of cardiac form and function. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 69(1):14–24Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    McBeath R, Pirone DM, Nelson CM, Bhadriraju K, Chen CS (2004) Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev Cell 6(4):483–495Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gao L, McBeath R, Chen CS (2010) Stem cell shape regulates a chondrogenic versus myogenic fate through Rac1 and N-cadherin. Stem Cells 28(3):564–572Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kilian KA, Bugarija B, Lahn BT, Mrksich M (2010) Geometric cues for directing the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11):4872–4877Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hall A (1998) Rho GTPases and the actin cytoskeleton. Science 279(5350):509–514Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Chiquet M, Gelman L, Lutz R, Maier S (2009) From mechanotransduction to extracellular matrix gene expression in fibroblasts. Biochim Biophys Act (BBA) Mol Cell Res 1793:911Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kanehisa M, Goto S (2000) KEGG: kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 28(1):27–30Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Aepfelbacher M, Essler M, Huber E (1996) Rho is a negative regulator of human monocyte spreading. J Immunol 157:5070Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Elosegui-Artola A, Bazellières E, Allen MD et al (2014) Rigidity sensing and adaptation through regulation of integrin types. Nat Mater 13(6):631–637Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Li G, Song Y, Shi M, Du Y, Wang W, Zhang Y (2017) Mechanisms of Cdc42-mediated rat MSC differentiation on micro/nano-textured topography. Acta Biomater 49:235–246Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kozma R, Sarner S, Ahmed S, Lim L (1997) Rho family GTPases and neuronal growth cone remodelling: relationship between increased complexity induced by Cdc42Hs, Rac1, and acetylcholine and collapse induced by RhoA and lysophosphatidic acid. Mol Cell Biol 17:1201Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Postma FR, Hengeveld T, Alblas J (1998) Acute loss of cell–cell communication caused by G protein–coupled receptors: a critical role for c-Src. J Cell Biol 140:1199Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Chen JC, Jacobs CR (2013) Mechanically induced osteogenic lineage commitment of stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther 4(5):107Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Tay CY, Koh CG, Tan NS, Leong DT, Tan LP (2013) Mechanoregulation of stem cell fate via micro-/nano-scale manipulation for regenerative medicine. Nanomedicine (Lond) 8(4):623–638Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Sinha S, Yang W (2008) Cellular signaling for activation of Rho GTPase Cdc42. Cell Signal 20(11):1927–1934Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hoang MV, Nagy JA, Senger DR (2011) Cdc42-mediated inhibition of GSK-3β improves angio-architecture and lumen formation during VEGF-driven pathological angiogenesis. Microvasc Res 81(1):34–43Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Braga VMM, Machesky LM, Hall A (1997) The small GTPases Rho and Rac are required for the establishment of cadherin-dependent cell–cell contacts. J Cell Biol 137:1421Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Byun MR, Hwang JH, Kim AR et al (2014) Canonical Wnt signalling activates TAZ through PP1A during osteogenic differentiation. Cell Death Differ 21(6):854–863Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Galli C, Piemontese M, Lumetti S, Ravanetti F, Macaluso GM, Passeri G (2012) Actin cytoskeleton controls activation of Wnt/β-catenin signaling in mesenchymal cells on implant surfaces with different topographies. Acta Biomater 8(8):2963–2968Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Galli C, Piemontese M, Lumetti S, Manfredi E, Macaluso GM, Passeri G (2012) The importance of WNT pathways for bone metabolism and their regulation by implant topography. Eur Cell Mater 24:46–59Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Olivares-Navarrete R, Hyzy S, Wieland M, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z (2010) The roles of Wnt signaling modulators Dickkopf-1 (Dkk1) and Dickkopf-2 (Dkk2) and cell maturation state in osteogenesis on microstructured titanium surfaces. Biomaterials 31(8):2015–2024Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    McMurray RJ, Wann AK, Thompson CL, Connelly JT, Knight MM (2013) Surface topography regulates wnt signaling through control of primary cilia structure in mesenchymal stem cells. Sci Rep 3:3545Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Lumetti S, Mazzotta S, Ferrillo S et al (2014) RhoA controls Wnt upregulation on microstructured titanium surfaces. Biomed Res Int 2014:401859Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Lim SH, Liu XY, Song H, Yarema KJ, Mao HQ (2010) The effect of nanofiber-guided cell alignment on the preferential differentiation of neural stem cells. Biomaterials 31(34):9031–9039Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Pryce BA, Watson SS, Murchison ND, Staverosky JA, Dünker N, Schweitzer R (2009) Recruitment and maintenance of tendon progenitors by TGFbeta signaling are essential for tendon formation. Development 136(8):1351–1361Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Das RK, Zouani OF (2014) A review of the effects of the cell environment physicochemical nanoarchitecture on stem cell commitment. Biomaterials 35(20):5278–5293Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Damanik FF, Rothuizen TC, van Blitterswijk C, Rotmans JI, Moroni L (2014) Towards an in vitro model mimicking the foreign body response: tailoring the surface properties of biomaterials to modulate extracellular matrix. Sci Rep 4:6325Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Zhang C, Yuan H, Liu H et al (2015) Well-aligned chitosan-based ultrafine fibers committed teno-lineage differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem cells for Achilles tendon regeneration. Biomaterials 53:716–730Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Zhang J, Dalbay MT, Luo X et al (2017) Topography of calcium phosphate ceramics regulates primary cilia length and TGF receptor recruitment associated with osteogenesis. Acta Biomater 57:487–497Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Chakravorty N, Ivanovski S, Prasadam I, Crawford R, Oloyede A, Xiao Y (2012) The microRNA expression signature on modified titanium implant surfaces influences genetic mechanisms leading to osteogenic differentiation. Acta Biomater 8(9):3516–3523Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Wang JR, Ahmed SF, Gadegaard N, Meek RM, Dalby MJ, Yarwood SJ (2014) Nanotopology potentiates growth hormone signalling and osteogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells. Growth Horm IGF Res 24(6):245–250Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Zheng G, Guan B, Hu P, Qi X, Wang P, Kong Y, Liu Z, Gao P, Li R, Zhang X, Wu X, Sui L (2018) Topographical cues of direct metal laser sintering titanium surfaces facilitate osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells through epigenetic regulation. Cell Prolif 51(4):e12460Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Zhang C, Wang X, Zhang E et al (2017) An epigenetic bioactive composite scaffold with well-aligned nanofibers for functional tendon tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 66:141Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Sartori EM, Magro-Filho O, Silveira MDB, Li X, Fu J, Mendonça G (2018) Modulation of micro RNA expression and osteoblast differentiation by nanotopography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33:269–280Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Khlusov IA, Dekhtyar Y, Sharkeev YP, Pichugin VF, Khlusova MY, Polyaka N, Tyulkin F, Vendinya V, Legostaeva EV, Litvinova LS, Shupletsova VV, Khaziakhmatova OG, Yurova KA, Prosolov KA (2018) Nanoscale electrical potential and roughness of a calcium phosphate surface promotes the osteogenic phenotype of stromal cells. Materials (Basel) 11:978Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Huang C, Dai J, Zhang XA (2015) Environmental physical cues determine the lineage specification of mesenchymal stem cells. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA) Gen Subj 1850(6):1261–1266Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Zhang X, Li H, Lin C, Ning C, Lin K (2018) Synergetic topography and chemistry cues guiding osteogenic differentiation in bone marrow stromal cells through ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK signaling pathway. Biomater Sci 6:418–430Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Schwartz-Filho HO, Morandini AC, Ramos-Junior ES et al (2012) Titanium surfaces with nanotopography modulate cytokine production in cultured human gingival fibroblasts. J Biomed Mater Res A 100(10):2629–2636Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Liu W, Wei Y, Zhang X, Xu M, Yang X, Deng X (2013) Lower extent but similar rhythm of osteogenic behavior in hBMSCs cultured on nanofibrous scaffolds versus induced with osteogenic supplement. ACS Nano 7(8):6928–6938Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Goetzke R, Sechi A, De Laporte L, Neuss S, Wagner W (2018) Why the impact of mechanical stimuli on stem cells remains a challenge. Cell Mol Life Sci 75:3297Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Jaggy M, Zhang P, Greiner AM et al (2015) Hierarchical micro-nano surface topography promotes long-term maintenance of undifferentiated mouse embryonic stem cells. Nano Lett 15(10):7146–7154Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Lü D, Luo C, Zhang C, Li Z, Long M (2014) Differential regulation of morphology and stemness of mouse embryonic stem cells by substrate stiffness and topography. Biomaterials 35(13):3945–3955Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Olivares-Navarrete R, Rodil SE, Hyzy SL et al (2015) Role of integrin subunits in mesenchymal stem cell differentiation and osteoblast maturation on graphitic carbon-coated microstructured surfaces. Biomaterials 51:69–79Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Zhang Y, Gong H, Sun Y, Huang Y, Fan Y (2016) Enhanced osteogenic differentiation of MC3T3-E1 cells on grid-topographic surface and evidence for involvement of YAP mediator. J Biomed Mater Res A 104(5):1143–1152Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Sun L, Pereira D, Wang Q et al (2016) Controlling growth and osteogenic differentiation of osteoblasts on microgrooved polystyrene surfaces. PLoS One 11(8):e0161466Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Lanfer B, Seib FP, Freudenberg U et al (2009) The growth and differentiation of mesenchymal stem and progenitor cells cultured on aligned collagen matrices. Biomaterials 30(30):5950–5958Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Khattak M, Pu F, Curran JM, Hunt JA, D’Sa RA (2015) Human mesenchymal stem cell response to poly(ε-caprolactone/poly(methyl methacrylate) demixed thin films. J Mater Sci Mater Med 26(5):178Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Chen P, Aso T, Sasaki R et al (2017) Micron/submicron hybrid topography of titanium surfaces influences Adhesion and differentiation behaviors of the mesenchymal stem cells. J Biomed Nanotechnol 13(3):324–336Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Li J, Qin W, Zhang K et al (2016) Controlling mesenchymal stem cells differentiate into contractile smooth muscle cells on a TiO2 micro/nano interface: towards benign pericytes environment for endothelialization. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 145:410–419Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Kiyan Y, Kurselis K, Kiyan R, Haller H, Chichkov BN, Dumler I (2013) Urokinase receptor counteracts vascular smooth muscle cell functional changes induced by surface topography. Theranostics 3(7):516–526Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Biela SA, Su Y, Spatz JP, Kemkemer R (2009) Different sensitivity of human endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells and fibroblasts to topography in the nano-micro range. Acta Biomater 5(7):2460–2466Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Cha SH, Lee HJ, Koh WG (2017) Study of myoblast differentiation using multi-dimensional scaffolds consisting of nano and micropatterns. Biomater Res 21:1Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Yang HS, Lee B, Tsui JH, Macadangdang J, Jang SY, Im SG, Kim DH (2016) Electroconductive nanopatterned substrates for enhanced myogenic differentiation and maturation. Adv Healthc Mater 5:137–145Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Moghadasi BS, Mashayekhan S, Vakilian S, Ardeshirylajimi A, Soleimani M (2016) The synergistic effect of surface topography and sustained release of TGF-β1 on myogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. J Biomed Mater Res A 104:1610–1621Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Younesi M, Islam A, Kishore V, Anderson JM, Akkus O (2014) Tenogenic induction of human MSCs by anisotropically aligned collagen biotextiles. Adv Funct Mater 24(36):5762–5770Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Madhurakkat PSK, Lee J, Ahmad T, Kim EM, Byun H, Lee S, Shin H (2018) Harnessing biochemical and structural cues for tenogenic differentiation of adipose derived stem cells (ADSCs) and development of an in vitro tissue interface mimicking tendon-bone insertion graft. Biomaterials 165:79–93Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiayun Huang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 6
  • Yangwu Chen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 6
  • Chenqi Tang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 6
  • Yang Fei
    • 1
    • 3
    • 6
  • Haoyu Wu
    • 2
    • 4
  • Dengfeng Ruan
    • 1
    • 3
    • 6
  • Maswikiti Ewetse Paul
    • 2
    • 4
  • Xiao Chen
    • 2
    • 4
    • 6
  • Zi Yin
    • 2
    • 4
  • Boon Chin Heng
    • 5
  • Weishan Chen
    • 1
  • Weiliang Shen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Surgery2nd Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang UniversityZhejiangChina
  2. 2.Dr. Li Dak Sum and Yip Yio Chin Center for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, Zhejiang UniversityZhejiangChina
  3. 3.Orthopaedics Research Institute of Zhejiang UniversityZhejiangChina
  4. 4.Department of Sports MedicineSchool of Medicine, Zhejiang UniversityZhejiangChina
  5. 5.Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong KongPokfulamChina
  6. 6.China Orthopaedic Regenerative Medicine (CORMed)HangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options